The 2014 symposium focused on models of cultural exchange. A related, and inevitable secondary focus is the institution, broadly defined as a primary set of conditions within which the practice of curating has evolved, and the various modes which it proposes, supports, and regulates for cultural exchange. The institution is understood here to include not just the exhibition format and associated physical spaces, but also the social space, the critical text, the publication, the archive, the biennale, the international residency and the research trip and not least, symposia like this one. It’s from within, in loose alignment with, or through resistance to these modes that the contemporary practice of curating continues to define itself. Each allows for a specific type of exchange, is mediated by the individuals involved, and comes with its own set of ethical obligations.

Three questions underpinned the symposium’s framework. These are: what are our roles and responsibili- ties as institutional workers, and as both guests and hosts? What can the contemporary institution do to further effective exchange? How do we avoid repeating dominant narratives? Indigeneity and how it is represented and afforded agency is a fundamental aspect of this conversation. Approaching this the third Curatorial Symposium, we wanted to build on the established dialogue and ambitions of the previous two. Essential to this discussion is retaining the geo-political specificity: these are intended as regionally-situated dis- cussion platforms, which look at issues particular to contemporary curatorial practice in the Asia Pacific. They anticipate practical outcomes for those practicing as curators or in related fields, as well as providing space for speculative conversation about why, how and what it is we do as curators, in relationship to other strands of cultural pro- duction, and a broader socio-political context.

Mindful of current discussions around the legacy of institutional critique, from our earliest conversations about the programme, there was a clear sense of urgency to look self-critically at the context in which we work. If, as Andrea Fraser has written, we come to embody the institution we affiliate with, how can we collectively become an active constituency, and one that prioritises radical mobility, emancipatory forms of political action, and usefulness as a civic function? How do we foster and protect criticality in our public institutions and spaces, in an increasingly corporat- ised institutional landscape?